RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER BSNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Respondents 1 and 2 waive service through learned Standing Counsel Mr. T. Sanjay. Third respondent waives service through learned Government Pleader. By consent, appeal called out for hearing and heard.

(2.) By a notice dated 17th August, 2001, (Ext. P3) addressed to P.V. Radhakrishnan, he was informed that this Courts Order for paying 50% of the total outstanding dues of Rs. 2,05,639 had not been complied with and, therefore, a threat was also given that his telephone would be disconnected. In that notice, by endorsements at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3, Telephone Nos. 310527 and 723527 of P.V. Chandra Bose and Telephone No. 723389 of Mohammed Koya Moopan were also threatened to be disconnected for non payment of the dues.

(3.) The Original Petition was filed by the said Radhakrishnan, Chandra Bose and Mohammed Koya Moopan to challenge the order at Ext. P3. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that R.416 of the Indian Telegraph Rules read with R.443 permits such action. We are unable to accept this view. What R.443 says is that, if a subscriber has more than one telephone connection, the telephone department would be entitled to disconnect all telephones of the same subscriber for default of any one or more telephone lines. R.416(2)(b)(iii) of the Rule provides that in cases of a defaulting subscriber, an application for installation of a new line by a relative or associate using the same premises may be refused. The expression of relative and associate are defined in the rule inclusively and broadly.